28 ms·

Both in rich and poor countries, universal health care brings huge benefits

• cabron123 9y ago
  EHEHEHEHEHEHE
• letsgetphysITal 9y ago
  It's almost as though sick people are less productive or something. Did we really need someone to tell us this?
  • matthewmacleod 9y ago
    Did we really need someone to tell us this? Well, yes. Otherwise, we'd expect there to be universal healthcare!
    • cmrdporcupine 9y ago
      What makes you think most people in power really care about productivity of the domestic population at this point? High productivity is something that is purchased from abroad these days.
• mizchief2 9y ago
  I don't oppose introducing universal healthcare in the US so much as my concern is that once its in place there is no going back and we can't enter it by slapping together a bill that no one has read and pass it using loopholes in the normal process.
• adaml_623 9y ago
  Just going to throw this out there. Non universal health care is analogous to half the roads in a city being toll roads. Society can still function and you can mostly get to where you're going but it's not close to efficient.
  • merpnderp 9y ago
    Why are toll roads not close to efficient? In my state the toll roads are by far the nicest best maintained roads and the tolls are extremely reasonable and collected without having to slow down or stop at a booth.
    • AstralStorm 9y ago
      Who collects the tolls? Is it a private company or a government body with motive different than maximum profit? For example in Poland we got the most expensive toll motorways in Europe because a private company owns them and continues to demands exorbitant prices for passage with nobody to stop it.
      • kodablah 9y ago
        > Who collects the tolls? Is it a private company or a government body with motive different than maximum profit? Private company with motive different than maximum profit. Motive: not to get subsumed and punished by the government allowing them to do this...then second motive is maximum profit. That primary motive one is an important one in all of these non-competitive industries, and can't even have a private vs public discussion without including it. Otherwise, it's just corruption/apathy and it's a different problem.
    • mikeash 9y ago
      Try having tolls on local streets with ownership changing every couple of blocks.
    • Balero 9y ago
      They work for highway, bridges etc. I think OP was suggesting something like every road in a city being a toll road, with a different toll per road. How much infrastructure would be needed to make this drivable, get the different road owners their money, make sure that each road owner is maintaining it. Better to have these huge number of interconnected roads maintained by one group responsible for them.
    • malyk 9y ago
• tomasien 9y ago
  We should think of healthcare (not insurance, care) as our #1 national defense priority.
  • dhimes 9y ago
    I get your sentiment, but I personally feel that education should be our #1 defense priority.
    • kingkawn 9y ago
      No need to fight over which one gets to be called number 1. Both are components of a whole vision; a healthy, thriving populace, building off the successes of one another to create a better experience for everyone, rich and poor alike.
      • ubi_now 9y ago
        You don't need government programs to do that.
        • AstralStorm 9y ago
          Please provide any example of successful large scale non governmental program that achieved such a lofty society wide goal. Note that military and intelligence is government funded and probably the field where US has the biggest achievements.
        • kingkawn 9y ago
          You need an organization that can utilize resources derived from the whole of the economy to provide service to the whole of the populace. Ideological prejudice against “government programs” obstructs getting this good work done.
        • creep 9y ago
          It's important to have a central, regulated allocation of some resources for a society as large as America-- and for that matter, any society. The point of group living (where any society is group living) is that everyone has a safe place to return to and can count on at least most of the other members of the group to help them out when they need it. The point of universal healthcare is that you pool your money with everyone else so that when you get sick, you get care, and when your neighbor gets sick, he doesn't spread his infectious disease to you, and when someone else in your work place gets sick, you spend less time making up for their missing days.
• sykh 9y ago
  When a person gets a life threatening disease they ought not worry about whether or not their treatment will leave their family in penury. This is especially so in a nation as wealthy as the U.S. The American healthcare system is immoral and I hope it drastically changes. Americans need to change their underlying notions of what it means to be a society. An author was once made fun of for suggesting that it takes a village to raise a child. When it comes to public funding for public goods we tend to worry about some poor person getting something they don’t deserve. The go it alone I’ve got mine, fuck you attitude is unhealthy. Until we change our collective view in what the purpose of a government and society is things won’t change significantly. Even so called champions of progressivism in the U.S. Senate voted against allowing the importation of medicine from Canada. It seems the public interest is subordinate to private interests and often times with immoral consequences.
  • merpnderp 9y ago
    If you think the private healthcare system is immoral, you should take a look at the 100% government ran healthcare system that is the VA. You literally couldn't make up worse things than their administration has been caught doing with little or to consequence. If the VA is the best the US government can do, with some of the most sympathetic citizens, then it is incapable of doing better than our private system.
    • e40 9y ago
      This is one of the straw men that is often brought up. There are a million reasons why the VA is messed up, most of which have NOTHING to do with healthcare. Congress has underfunded our troops for decades, related to healthcare and not. Something as simple as body armor is often purchased with personal money. A woman that works for me is high up in the Marines and I hear stories that disgust me. I do not know how Congress gets away with this. The stories are out there, but the American people seem to not give a you know what. Please don't conflate the problems of the VA with Universal Healthcare.
      • RangerScience 9y ago
• khawkins 9y ago
  From the Hackernews guidelines: "Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon." This post is clearly political and calls for universal health care have been around for decades.
  • ape4 9y ago
    Universal health care helps startups.
    • macintux 9y ago
      And helps people feel empowered to try to start their own company.
    • seanmcdirmid 9y ago
      It would also help most big companies with spiraling health care costs, as well as lower paying jobs that can’t afford to provide benefits anyways.
    • MrBuddyCasino 9y ago
      This is not certain. There is evidence that the safer people feel, the less willing they are to take risks. This is only paradoxical at first glance.
      • amclennon 9y ago
        On the other hand, taking potential health concerns out of the equation makes working for a startup inherently less risky. Before the ACA removed restrictions of pre-existing conditions, merely switching employers carried the risk of losing access to necessary healthcare.
    • mac01021 9y ago
      You don't need universal or publicly funded healthcare for this. You just need it to become the norm for employers not to provide healthcare insurance. So for example (and I am NOT saying we should actually do this) if they would simply pass a law forbidding employers from including health coverage as part of their compensation packages, then everyone would be buying their own insurance (on exchanges or wherever) and startups along with every other business would be relieved of the burden.
• fortythirteen 9y ago
  This article conflates public "essential health" services with universal, state-run healthcare. It also uses nondescript graphs, in image form and with no link to source data, to make sweeping, "correlation equals causation" points about universal health care and life expectancy. This is an article trying to make an ideological case rather than to discern truth.
  • fsloth 9y ago
    "This is an article trying to make an ideological case rather than to discern truth." Generally Economist is unashamedly political. That's what makes it so good - they don't try to hide the fact that they take a stand. They give you the facts and their arguments, and then it's up to the reader to digest it. If you disagree with some of the points, I suggest you send them a letter. The letters section of Economist is one of the high points of the magazine as well - they publish rebuttals and corrections no matter how far they stray from the magazines core claim as long as the letter is well written and sanely argumentative.
    • fortythirteen 9y ago
      > Generally Economist is unashamedly political. I have no problem with unashamedly political. I do have a problem with willful disingenuousness to promote ideological dogma.
• nisa 9y ago
  There are lots of problems you can avoid when you are able to regularly get a checkup from your doctor. Also not everything is only a cold and having someone who can check early for complications might save a lot of lives or prevent people from far worse conditions. Last but not least: Access to mental health services like cognitive behavior therapy that replace or supplement only eating pills might help a lot of folks with addiction and raises productivity.
  • Consultant32452 9y ago
    What are your thoughts on this Oregon study which showed no significant effect on health outcomes for people who were given Medicaid vs the uninsured? https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/05/02/oregon-study-medicaid-had-no-significant-effect-on-health-outcomes-vs-being-uninsured/#71a919d60430 https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/05/02/oregon...
    • nisa 9y ago
      That's wrong - here is the study: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa1212321#t=articleTop https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa1212321#t=articl... We found that insurance led to increased access to and utilization of health care, substantial improvements in mental health, and reductions in financial strain, but we did not observe reductions in measured blood-pressure, cholesterol, or glycated hemoglobin levels.
  • thanatropism 9y ago
    > cognitive behavior therapy that replace or supplement only eating pills might help a lot of folks with addiction and raises productivity. This is a nice sentiment, but would you quantitatively argue that this is a good investment?
    • nisa 9y ago
      > This is a nice sentiment, but would you quantitatively argue that this is a good investment? Yes. You learn about your behavior, the reasons you act like you do and learn tools to avoid the traps in the future. Effectiveness might depend on the problem but this is probably studied - it's a powerful toolbox to combat problems and most countries use it successfully to replace the initial medication for issues like depression.
• ordinaryperson 9y ago
  Universal health care is a euphemism for the poor and sick getting their medical care subsidized by the wealthy and healthy. Morally, caring for the sick seems like the right thing to do, but it's like when I hear Bernie Sanders call for "free college education": he doesn't mean free, he means the wealthy subsidizing it for others. Universal health care implies just distributed costs, but the focus should be on bringing down costs so the payments don't have to be so astronomical. For example: -Nurses could do a lot of things doctors do now, and for a lot less money, but MDs refuse to cede any authority. -Medicare should be allowed to negotiate drug prices. -Hospitals should pre-publish costs upfront before you accept care rather than saddle you with 100K in bills later on. All of these things would help bring down cost but for political reasons we don't do them. Instead it's just about making wealthy people (which, for the record, I am not) pay more to cover for it. Even if caring for the sick is just it shouldn't be accomplished just by a wealth transfer (to be fair, the ACA had some provisions to bring down the cost of care, but not nearly enough).
  • seanmcdirmid 9y ago
    > Nurses could do a lot of things doctors do now, and for a lot less money, but MDs refuse to cede any authority Nurse practitioners are actually increasingly common in the American health care system.
    • ordinaryperson 9y ago
      Yes, and I'd love to see them do more. Like a lot of preventative care. Or obesity -- so many health problems stem from being obese. Surely nurses could help patients develop strategies to eat better and exercise.
  • pretzel 9y ago
    > Universal health care is a euphemism for the poor and sick getting their medical care subsidized by the wealthy and healthy. Is it? I would have thought it is the commonwealth looking after the people that make it! Surely for countries with large sovereign wealth funds (especially those derived from the country's natural wealth), it makes sense to care for the people for which it is meant to provide! The whole redistribution lens is a very specific way of looking at things.
• programmarchy 9y ago
  If you get cancer, would you rather be treated in the US or Europe? Survival rates are significantly higher in the US, so I know what I'd choose. And yeah, I'll pay more, too, because I want high quality doctors.
  • tremon 9y ago
    Yes, let's turn a multifaceted, fairly objective article into a narrowminded, single-issue catchphrase, and introduce a false dichotomy that isn't even close to the content of the article. It seems like a lot of work just so you can keep beating your chest, or do you have an actual point to make?
    • programmarchy 9y ago
      Looks like you worked harder than I did to just come here and whine.
  • kbcool 9y ago
    Europe these days, at least I'd be treated like a human being and not a cash cow. Survival rates in the USA were better in the 1960s but most of the OECD now has much lower mortality rates from a diagnosis of cancer than the USA. One exception is the UK but the margin is very narrow. What the USA is good at is over-treatment which can extend life expectancy of a cancer patient a little bit (days, weeks on average) but you could argue the quality of life is not there. This is a direct a bi-product of an extremely inefficient health system which is designed to make as much money as possible for all of the participants rather than treat patients. As a percentage of GDP health care spending in the USA is completely out of control.
    • programmarchy 9y ago
      I can understand that perspective. But are you really treated more humanely in Europe? Instead of a cash cow, you're a statistical number that determines where you will get placed in the queue and how long you'll wait. In the US, you at least have the potential for autonomy to pay the best doctor you can find you to treat you as soon as possible. That autonomy (or illusion thereof if you're a cynic) is a core component of the American identity. That feels more human to me. However, I do agree spending is completely out of control. A big reason is because Americans are extremely unhealthy. Many are obese, don't exercise, and eat like shit. I think those people should be punished with large insurance premiums, instead of being treated equally to someone who proactively takes care of their health and has a higher chance of long-term survival. What's left of the insurance market does still respond to those incentives. There's some fits and starts with this in insurance (e.g. step trackers) but these are values and habits that need to be instilled in people from youth. That is an area I can see the state stepping in, and something they're better equipped to handle than a complex healthcare system. Genetic diseases are a different case, and should be treated differently. There is a huge opportunity for prevention through genetics, but everyone raises a stink because of the "eugenics" bogeyman. This is an area where I agree with the transhumanist types in that we should really be taking a close look at our genetics and taking a scientific approach to improving them for longevity. I'd love to see a Manhattan Project for life extension. The main problem I see with universal healthcare, besides the stupid communistic utopianism, is that it doesn't really fix the underlying problems with the incentive structure. I think we could agree that the incentive structure should revolve around proactive physical fitness and the early prediction and prevention of disease, not pills and palliative care. From my perspective, it looks like European governments are struggling and failing with their systems. They're slow to treat people and are not innovating in medicine at a high level. Yes, corporations want to extract wealth from individuals with high prices but so do government agencies with high taxes. And governments have much less incentive to innovate; they tend to ossify. My point is, Americans have other options other than universal healthcare. I think we should not settle for the European-style socialist system because it relies on a religious holdover manifest in a secular world: that if we treat everyone equally we'll all be magically saved. Instead, Americans should draw from our founding principals of individual autonomy and manifest destiny to form a healthcare system that embodies our ideal future.
• judah 9y ago
  A problem with government-provided healthcare is that the government will have ultimate say over a patient's care. This is not merely theoretical. Last week, Alfie Evans, a 2 year old, was put to death by the state-run healthcare in the UK.[0] "Alfie's parents had offers of care in Rome, where doctors said they would investigate different treatments. Even Pope Francis appealed to the British government to let Alfie go. Yet the British government barred Alfie’s parents from taking him to Italy or anywhere else to try to save his life. Despite tests that showed Alfie was not in pain, the courts ruled — at the hospital’s urging — that moving Alfie anywhere else was unacceptable. That’s a lethal abuse of power and reminiscent of dictatorships that built walls around their countries to keep people in.[0] Alfie’s parents watched while their son was held captive in a British hospital. The final decision about his care was not theirs to make. This core flaw in the British system has harmed other parents, too." Where is the critical thinking on government-provided healthcare? Everyone looks at the sunshine and rainbows of "free" healthcare for everyone, without considering the serious questions of restricted freedom and heavy taxation involved. [0]: http://thehill.com/opinion/civil-rights/385533-thanks-to-britain-alfie-evans-never-got-the-chance-for-death-with http://thehill.com/opinion/civil-rights/385533-thanks-to-bri...
  • matthewmacleod 9y ago
    This is not merely theoretical. Last week, Alfie Evans, a 2 year old, was put to death by the state-run healthcare in the UK Please don't spread misinformation about this particular topic.
    • judah 9y ago
      A UK court ruled he could not seek treatment elsewhere, and was ordered off life support. That's not misinformation, it's reality. edit Downvoted for citing a verifiable fact. This is a remarkably emotional, politically-charged thread. Comments and voting in this thread are driven not by logic and reason, but by emotion and political bias.
      • sdwa 9y ago
        There was no treatment to be had in Rome, they were just going to hook him up to a life support machine. The doctors in Rome, being doctors, are professionals, so they never once suggested they would be able to cure or even treat his condition.
• patrickmay 9y ago
  Universal health care doesn't require government coercion. Many more people in the US would have access to health care, including insurance for catastrophic events, if the state and federal governments stopped interfering in the supply side. The same groups that use force to prevent new hospitals being built, restrict the number of doctors, prevent nurses and nurse practitioners from treating many problems they're more than qualified to address, and disallow insurance being sold across state lines say that the solution to the problems they created is more government. It's almost like they have an ulterior motive. Big government programs raise taxes and decrease liberty. To quote Penn Jillette, "Why not err on the side of a little more freedom?"
  • Pharylon 9y ago
    Penn Jillette also believes global warming is a conspiracy. No nation with free market health insurance has universal healthcare, so as the person making an extraordinary claim, it's on you to come up with proof.
    • edanm 9y ago
      > Penn Jillette also believes global warming is a conspiracy. Ummm, no he doesn't? This was something he believed in the past but has since changed his mind about.
      • JoeAltmaier 9y ago
        Well, he spouts whatever makes a youtube video gets hits. Without research or background. He is an entertainer after all. What he actually believes is probably unknown.
        • edanm 9y ago
          That's a fairer criticism, although I disagree. You could say "what he actually believes is unknown" about anyone, really. He makes his views quite well known, at least from what I've followed him. Still, I think replying to someone's quoting Penn with the equivalent of "well he denies climate change, so why would we listen to him?" is pretty pointless for a debate, especially when what you say is wrong! We might as well throw out the ability to quote anyone, since basically everyone has some view that someone disagrees with.
• prueba3 9y ago
  Interesting
• commenter1 9y ago
  I'd much rather pay for healthcare, infra or basically what ever benefits us, the society, than for the war industry.
  • conanbatt 9y ago
    As an average american citizen, you already pay for healthcare. You are not getting the bang for your buck, thats the problem.
• walrus01 9y ago
  $5700 ER bill for an ice pack and refusal of treatment: https://www.vox.com/2018/5/1/17261488/er-expensive-medical-bill https://www.vox.com/2018/5/1/17261488/er-expensive-medical-b... this is what's broken in America today.
  • ams6110 9y ago
    OK. An ER is a very expensive facility. It is fitted out with staff and equipment to handle almost any conceivable trauma or life-threating condition. That all amortizes into a baseline cost-per-patient. If you go there for something that requires just an ice pack, you are wasting a very expensive resource. It's like calling for a helicopter to take you across town and wondering why it isn't as cheap as a taxi.
  • fastball 9y ago
    Maybe part of the problem is the mindset "banged my head on a table, time for the ER" ??? If you're young and healthy and you lightly bang your head on a table, you don't need the ER! It sounds like she wasn't even concussed! Sure, get checked out by a doctor, but this isn't a life or death situation, so don't clog up ER triage with your BS. That's like breaking your toe and calling an ambulance.
    • beagle3 9y ago
      Maybe. But possible one in a hundred times, the "banged head on table" could lead to complications. I'm familiar with such a case. Somehow, everywhere in the developed world except the US, people can go to the ER-or-equivalent (many places have 24-hour clinics/triage centers that would send you to an ER only if needed) after they've banged their heads, and 99% of the time be told "go home, it's fine" without being bankrupt. I would say the problem is with how the US healthcare system is run.
      • fastball 9y ago
        People go to "ER-or-equivalent". Immediately mentions a place that is not the same as ER that the US also has (clinics). As I said -- she was wrong to go to the ER. She lives in NJ. I know for a fact there are loads of clinics she could've gone to and been sent home with a clean bill of health for $50 copay.
• austincheney 9y ago
  When the issue of universal health care comes up with regards to US policy I often see those emotional arguments pulling on the heart strings. Unfortunately, this is a distraction. I know this sounds cold, but it comes down to money. Healthcare in America is expensive. The problems appear to be commonly identified by various forms of research and including things like pricing inefficiencies of drugs, malpractice insurance, and administrative inefficiencies. The problem isn't as simple as blaming medical insurance providers, pricing, or fees. The problems appeared be directly associated to the processes in place, or in the case of drug prices missing pricing regulation. Drug pricing regulation does exist for the VA which has a set pricing schedule, but everybody else gets to pay more. In order for universal healthcare to come into fruition in the US these cost inefficiencies have to be addressed. If universal healthcare is important for you then these financial and administrative problems are what you should solve for.
  • slantedview 9y ago
    Fun fact that most Americans don't know: We _ALREADY_ spend more than enough on healthcare as a nation to fully fund healthcare for everybody. It's just that, unlike in other countries, our current system routes that spending to various for profit entities that don't involve actually providing care. tldr; Lack of funding is not a legitimate argument against providing healthcare to Americans.
    • austincheney 9y ago
      Doesn't that suggest health care in America is too expensive? Increasing funding to an inefficient system doesn't sound like a sustainable or extensible solution.
      • Daishiman 9y ago
        The inefficiency is in the private sector.
        • conanbatt 9y ago
• fbunau 9y ago
  In my country we do have single payer health care, but I wouldn't step foot into a state hospital unless I would have a terminal disease. The infrastructure is old and crumbling, people get infections during operations and walk out more sick than they entered. Sometimes you are asked to bring your own medicine, and basic medical supplies because hospitals don't provide you with anything. The system is overcrowded and no one gives a shit about you unless you bribe them. I think the key-word is functioning universal health care. While I do support paying for universal health care and think it is a basic necessity of a civilized country, you need a good culture and competent people to make it work. I think a good culture makes shit work, not the process itself. (just like applying Scrum / Agile won't make you solve anything without the right people)
  • oblio 8y ago
    Dude, you're honestly comparing the Romanian health care system with one from a developed country? I'm also Romanian, cut the crap.
  • petermcneeley 9y ago
    "I think a good culture makes shit work, not the process itself" Ya this is genius. I also think this is why no finite amount of laws can solve corruption issues.
  • Frondo 9y ago
    What country is that?
    • kalleboo 9y ago
      Presumably not one that spends twice the world average per capita on healthcare like the US.
      • mullen 9y ago
        > Sometimes you are asked to bring your own medicine, and basic medical supplies because hospitals don't provide you with anything. The system is overcrowded and no one gives a shit about you unless you bribe them. Sounds like Venezuela, which I would not hold up as a gleaming example of good governance.
• announcerman 9y ago
  Universal healthcare is not a silver bullet, in certain Eastern European Countries we pay a large amount of our salary in taxes so that we have universal healthcare and yet you still have to give "gifts" to every nurse and doctor that treats you unless you want the bare minimum treatment and care. Doctors can also intentionally botch surgeries if you fail to pay up. Not so much that it can be called malpraxis though.
  • delinka 9y ago
    How can a surgery be "botched" but not be malpractice?
    • shawabawa3 9y ago
      Simple, there were "complications" caused by "x, y, z". which is all totally legit, except it's all made up and unverified due to rampant corruption
  • Daishiman 9y ago
    And you think private health care is going to make that better? That's not an argument against public health care.
  • dagenleg 9y ago
    Why countries specifically?
    • grey-sunshine 9y ago
      Happens in India too in the public sector.
  • js2 9y ago
    Obviously corruption can undermine any system. I assume in those countries the corruption extends to areas other than healthcare as well.
  • fulafel 9y ago
    How big are the bribes compared to co-pays or ER bills in the US?
• majidazimi 9y ago
  Isn't it better to design health care system based on some form of score, very much like credit score in financial systems? The healthier you live, the less you pay. Obviously someone who drinks alcohol regularly, smokes regularly, is overweight, ... would be a burden on health care system (in long run) compared to someone who lives with a healthy life style. Why would they both pay the same amount? In a credit-based system the former pays more. Making some exceptions in such a system is just fine. Not everyone has cancer. Insurance company can easily pay the full amount for these people. It is not the major cost for system.
  • throwawayjava 9y ago
    How do you know how often someone smokes or drinks? How do you determine what level of smoking/drinking is harmful enough to merit higher premiums? How do you dispute the insurance provider's claim that your cancer is really your fault because you chose to live in a city with bad air? Enforcement requires a beneficient panopticon.
• willvarfar 9y ago
  In these kinds of discussions I like to promote this interesting TEDx talk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9UmdY0E8hU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9UmdY0E8hU "Where in the world is it easiest to get rich?" Spoiler: the talk shows that statistically the Nordic countries lead the world in millionaires and billionaires / capita, and in rags-to-riches. The talker offers the opinion that this is because its of the strong social safety net, education and healthcare. Living in Scandinavia of course I like to hear this ;)
  • deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  • fastball 9y ago
    Or maybe it's the very high resource/population ratio? The petroleum sector accounts for 40% of Norway's exports. Fishing is 10% (!) of Norwegian exports. Both of these things have an incredibly high extraction efficiency in the modern era. It would be nice to believe it's the social safety net, but I don't think that hypothesis is backed up with much evidence. The much more obvious reason is staring Scandinavia in the face. I'm intrigued to see how Norway does when the rest of the world stops using petroleum and goes vegan.
    • willvarfar 9y ago
      Sweden, without oil and without much fishing, is also doing really well per-capita etc. On the ground, the welfare state approach seems the plausible explanation. And how will Norway do post-oil? Really rather well, it seems, because of its sovereign wealth approach which contrasts strongly with eg the Texas approach.
  • kodablah 9y ago
    I've about given up on per-capita studies whose results rely on cultural differences too (but of course can't account for them). We have to accept places are different in more ways than population size. It's like saying where in the world is it easiest to have blonde hair.
• wl78393 9y ago
  Tell that to little Alfie. When you have an unconditional "right" to consume someone else's labor, the inevitable result is tyranny, rationing and the force of government determining outcomes.
  • fortythirteen 9y ago
    You'll get no concessions from a political ideology that refuses to disassociate from, or even recognize the existence of, extremist elements on it's side of the spectrum.
  • shawabawa3 9y ago
    I see this argument a lot, but in no country with socialised medicine is any doctor ever "forced" to treat someone. Doctors can choose employers, work in private practises, and quit at any time. Much like many employees, when they're employed they may have to perform duties relevant to their position such as treating sick people
  • DanBC 9y ago
    If you're going to read anything about this at least read the latest court case: https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/judgments/thomas-evans-v-alder-hey-trust/ https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/judgments/thomas-evans-v-alder-... It's short. It's simple to understand. It's clear about the legal principles. Also, you should probably read something about the terrible legal advice provided by CLC. https://nearlylegal.co.uk/2018/04/on-the-naughty-step-the-questionable-ethics-of-the-christian-legal-centre/ https://nearlylegal.co.uk/2018/04/on-the-naughty-step-the-qu... https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/apr/28/call-from-god-american-pro-lifers-role-in-alfie-evans-battle?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/apr/28/call-from-go... Alfie Evans got 16 months of world class health care. When he got to the point where treating him was futile and doctors wanted to turn off life-support they needed to get the agreement of the parents. Because the parents didn't agree the hospital needed to go to court. The hospital was not allowed to go ahead without a court order giving them permission. This is unlike California and Virginia, where the doctors announce the plan and then the parents have to sue to stop it happening. For the court process the parents had excellent legal representation paid for by the state. The parents went through seven firms of solicitors and a counsel team of top class silk plus two juniors, because they disagreed with the legal advice each firm gave them. They eventually wound up being represented by the CLC - someone who isn't a solicitor gave them terrible legal advice. On top of that Alfie had his own, independent, legal representation. This is because Alfie was a human, and humans have rights, and we protect human rights that are enshrined in our law and in international law. The courts had the power to get independent medical advice, which they did. Every single doctor agreed - treatment was futile; Alfie had no brain; he was going to die and die soon. The courts decided that it wasn't possible to say that further treatment would not cause more pain and suffering to Alfie, and they ordered that it was in his best interests to remove life support. It's important to note that no hospital was offering anything other than end-of-life care. The parents disagreed, and took the case up through appeal, then supreme court, then Europe, and back again. This is many different judges, and the all agreed: it was in Alfie's best interests to let him die. (Europe agreed that Alfie's best interests had been kept in mind. The court cases are available online, and you should read them, because they are short and easy to read and the principles are clear: everything has to be done in Alfie's best interest; the parent's views are important but they don't own Alfie. So, you seem to say that we did it wrong, and that the US would do it better. In the UK the hospital had to go to court. In eg California that is reversed. The doctors tell the family they're going to stop treatment, and the family have to go to court to stop the hospital. Who pays the legal bills for the family? Who pays the legal bills for the child? http://medicalfutility.blogspot.co.uk/2018/04/medical-futility-and-brain-death.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter http://medicalfutility.blogspot.co.uk/2018/04/medical-futili...
• loxs 9y ago
  It has the benefit of being supported by the state, yet nowhere has it obsoleted private healthcare (except for places where the government outright criminalizes private healthcare). There is something rotten in Denmark.
• chiefalchemist 9y ago
  Yes, health care is important, if not morally necessary in the 21st century. That said, it's also (imo) a proxy. The more accurate metrics are things like infant mortality rate (IMR), longevity, etc. KPIs that measure actual health and health outcomes. Access isn't necessarily the key. Take for __example__ the USA. We now have the vast majority of the population covered. We spend more and more (and more)on healthcare. Yet, IMR is climbing. It's predicted that the current generation(s) will die younger. And finally, obesity is so widespread it's been mentioned as a threat to nation security. Point being, (as stated) healthcare is a proxy (even for the countries that have it). I would imagine there are 5 to 10 KPI's that measure __health and wellness__ that would be more accurate (and likely paint a different impression). Healthcare isn't a panacea. Yes, it's necessary. But benefits come from health (and wellness / prevention) and not just care. Editorial: Discussing health care without also discussing (personal) health is a fool's errand. Championing healthcare is great for buying votes, but it's only part of the picture.
• patrickg_zill 9y ago
  Skeptic's questions: 1. How many are aware that Britain's NHS, if run as well as Spain's healthcare system, would kill 10,000 fewer patients each year due to better treatment? https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/nhs-world-ranking-uk-healthcare-worse-ireland-spain-slovenia-30th-lancet-a7744131.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/nhs-world-ranking-... and http://www.cityam.com/270171/nhs-world-class-if-you-ignore-its-woeful-outcomes http://www.cityam.com/270171/nhs-world-class-if-you-ignore-i... (3rd to last paragraph) 2. I can get an MRI in the USA within 3-5 days (sometimes next day), virtually anywhere in the country. Canada (universal health care) wait times to receive MRI(self-reported by the government): over 90 days in some cases. In the richest and most populous province of Ontario, only 41% of patients got scanned within the targeted time: http://www.hqontario.ca/System-Performance/Wait-Times-for-Diagnostic-Imaging?utm_source=Ontario.ca&utm_medium=Referral&utm_campaign=WT%20Referral http://www.hqontario.ca/System-Performance/Wait-Times-for-Di... (you might have to select Adult MRI instead of the default Adult CT) If you were diagnosed with a possible brain tumor/cancer requiring an MRI to confirm, would the 50 to 90-day difference in MRI and diagnosis result in a measurable difference in outcome, if you did in fact have a tumor?
  • curtis 9y ago
    > If you were diagnosed with a possible brain tumor/cancer requiring an MRI to confirm, would the 50 to 90-day difference in MRI and diagnosis result in a measurable difference in outcome, if you did in fact have a tumor? I would assume in a case like this that they'd move you to the front of the MRI line.
  • beagle3 9y ago
    > 2. I can get an MRI in the USA within 3-5 days (sometimes next day), virtually anywhere in the country. AFAIK you can do that anywhere in Europe as well, provided that you pay out of pocket, or that you have purchased extra coverage to do that -- the cost of which is usually a fraction of similar coverage in the US. (Also AFAIK, you weren't able to pay out of pocket in Canada for that 20 years ago - I don't know if that has changed). > If you were diagnosed with a possible brain tumor/cancer requiring an MRI to confirm, would the 50 to 90-day difference in MRI and diagnosis result in a measurable difference in outcome, if you did in fact have a tumor? The 50-90 days number quoted is, AFAIK, related to non-urgent things. I know two people who got it within 24 hours when there was suspicion of a tumor.
• grey-sunshine 9y ago
  Is this the story to make us forget what happened to Alfie?
• Kequc 9y ago
  I've lived in countries that have socialized medicine and ones without and my experience was dramatically different. I was always taught that socialized medicine was better. However I never got half decent care until I bought private health insurance. My whole life I've been on government healthcare plans, across various countries. Imagine my shock when the first time I called my private health insurance provider at 34, it worked well. They chose the clinic I would go to, when I arrived to my appointment I was immediately ushered in to meet a physician. The physician was able to diagnose many problems within a couple of minutes, and I was asked to call my insurance company back so they could approve a series of tests and treatments. I waited half an hour for approval and I then immediately saw two different doctors and had an x-ray all before leaving the building. The clinic is interested in actually treating me and giving me the best care possible so that I don't come back. This ensures they get repeat business from my insurance company. Socialized medicine never gave me that kind of care or expediency in my life. The problems were all fixed. One of the problems I've had for 10 years. Doctors were never able to diagnose it properly or it was "come back in 2 weeks, try this medicine, try that, etc." They were not interested in treating me they were interested in seeing me again and again because they were getting paid by the state. I'm sure there are anecdotes to the contrary but I am completely sold on private healthcare. It's also fantastically cheaper. In Germany for example I was paying 800/month for healthcare, half "paid by my employer", which would really be my money. My current private healthcare costs about 380/year. Diagnosed immediately, immediate care. I can buy as much or as little as I want and don't have to subsidize others. I'm encouraged to stay in shape and healthy.
  • AstralStorm 9y ago
    You will quickly find the limits of private healthcare once a surgery or advanced treatment is necessary. Usually that it is not covered in your plan. Heck, even relatively simple specialist interventions will go beyond coverage. In many countries they are great at routine care, no doubt, as they're just not overcrowded and that is the main reason for problems in public systems. If you shift all the crowd there... well... they degrade much quicker and worse than public. So, apples to apples. Fully public vs fully private systems. You could say compare German system with US system which are almost completely mirror images except German one is many times cheaper.
• narrator 9y ago
  The big riddle is how do you get the health care costs in the U.S back in line with the rest of the world, which doesn't necessarily have single payer. I'm a big fan of Singapore's public/private hybrid which delivers excellent results for a very low percent of GDP. We spend double as a percent of our GDP on health care vs all other developed nations.
  • speby 9y ago
    Me too. Then of course you get into the nitty-gritty (https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/4/25/15356118/singapore-health-care-system-explained https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/4/25/15356118/s...): "More than 80 percent of the hospital beds in Singapore are in public hospitals, and those hospitals are cut into different “wards” with different levels of amenities: A-class wards provide unsubsidized care but have single rooms and air conditioning, while C-class wards are overwhelmingly subsidized but are set up like shared dormitories with common toilets. There are a number of ward levels in between, too, all with a sliding scale of comfort and subsidization. So both A-ward patients and C-ward patients are paying for their own care, but the prices they’re paying are very, very different, because the government is absorbing the direct cost of care in the C-wards." Not saying common toilets are unacceptable but it's things like that which would be a big adjustment/shock to the American system of being used to mostly individual rooms with meal service, etc.
• Proven 9y ago
  Nonsense. 1) There is no consideration of cost (typical statist nonsense). In most if not all places the healthcare system is piling up debts that will never be paid 2) Every useful activity that the government performs, the private sector does cheaper and better. 3) If it had benefits then people would buy it on their own
• cderfvbgt 9y ago
  my father always said: "those who have will even take from those who don't have". this seems to be the crux of the issue
• someone454 9y ago
  Unless your name is Alfie Evans, then government managed healthcare is a death sentence with no chance of appeal. Remember folks, when you cede control to the government they will vigorously defend that control.
• wjnc 9y ago
  A dissenting opinion: in The Netherlands, with pretty awesome universal healthcare, >50% of healthcare costs are made for 600k 65+ yr olds. That in a country of 17 million. It's 28 B€ for this small group in 42B€ total cost. The social value of catastrophic health insurance is huge. The cost of universal cradle to grave care is catastrophic and untenable within 20 yrs. Source (in Dutch, from a government regulatory agency), looking across healthcare categories: https://www.nza.nl/actueel/nieuws/2018/04/20/zorg-voor-ouderen-in-beeld-overgrote-deel-ouderen-woont-thuis https://www.nza.nl/actueel/nieuws/2018/04/20/zorg-voor-ouder...
• Tomminn 9y ago
  Ah yet another time to remind US citizens they are needlessly dying at worst or massively overpaying for health at best. The health care of system of the US is insane and has malignant cost disease. If they scrapped everything and adopted a universal health care system where the government simply pays for health care of everyone up to a standard of care above which there is quickly diminishing returns, they could do so without increasing current federal levels of health spending, since US government health spending is already large by the standards of other countries that take the single payer approach. If you want more health care than this, you can buy private insurance, except now because all consumers are weighing up whether it's actually worth it given they have most of their health care covered by the government, the insurance/health system has much less cost disease. This is how health care works in sane countries. Countries where rational policy discussions cannot get totally derailed by the magical word "socialism".